GMs Propose Hit to Head Rule Change
At the GM meetings this week, the GMs across the league are recommending a league-wide ban on shoulder hits to the head. This topic was going to be a hot one before the Matt Cooke incident. What that incident did was provide Evidence A in the case against such hits. Evidence B is David Booth. Evidence C is…well, you get the point.
The proposed rule change is as follows (from TSN):
“A lateral, back pressure or blindside hit to an opponent where the head is targeted and or the principal point of contact is not permitted.
A violation of the above will result in a minor or major penalty and shall be reviewed for possible supplemental discipline.”
I support this as long as it targets the blatant offenders. There is a very fine line here though, much like the boarding calls we have seen. What happens if a player changes his body position last second, and a clean hit to the shoulder becomes a hit to the head? Sure, the player delivering the hit may not get suspended, but the powerplay that comes from it could alter the outcome of the game.
It is a very fine line to draw, but it is the same judgment call being used in the other big sports. Baseball umpires have to determine if a pitcher blatantly threw at an opposing batter. Football referees have to determine if a hit was late or dirty. Basketball referees have to determine if a foul was flagrant. These shoulder to the head hits have ended, or at least greatly affected, careers in the NHL (see: Lindros, Eric). It is good to see that the NHL wants to protect its players from dirty hits, but let’s hope the league recognizes what is dirty, and what is just a clean hit with unfortunate timing/results.
By Bettman's Nightmare, March 10, 2010 @ 12:11 pm
I’m fairly certain this will devolve into a situation similar to the current one; basically, there’ll be an incident that may or may not be called in a game, and it will be reviewed. In other words, the wheel of justice just got another spoke, little more.
By Matt, March 10, 2010 @ 1:05 pm
Long overdue, glad to see it.
Here’s one that will spark a debate. How great was the up-and-down hockey during the Olympics? How about making fighting a game misconduct?
I know, I know, it’s part of the game, and I love it, but the Olympic hockey was great (part of it yes, was the players).
I mean, they still allowed a little rough stuff after the whistle.
By Dave, March 10, 2010 @ 1:15 pm
I think it’s just going to be another version of the boarding hit. Every now and then you’ll see a penalty, but most will get reviewed.
So pretty much what I’m saying is yes, I agree with you.
Matt Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
And the people that say “The old time hockey fans won’t like a non-fighting rule” are just wrong.
If you’re a die-hard hockey person, you’ll like the game with or without fighting.
By Dave, March 10, 2010 @ 1:26 pm
I disagree there Matt, I like fighting. I just don’t like the staged fights or the “you hit our star with a clean hit so I’m fighting you” fights. I like the emotions boiling over fights, a la the Lecavalier/Iginla fight way back when during the Cup Finals.
Matt Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Ok, I get you on that one, and agree there.
The oh, “you bumped crosby so I have to put your face into the 1st row” fights aren’t necessary.
Not even for safety’s sake, just no need.
Also, I’d still keep my “fight and you’re out of the game” rule in, because it would be ‘worth’ it.
It would keep the flow of the game going, and you’d get the occasional fight.
Perhaps the player’s union (which doesn’t have much power in hockey anyway) wouldn’t like it cause it would take jobs away, so there’s always that aspect…
Dave Reply:
March 10th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
It would add more skill to the game. You would see a lot more power forwards who can score 10 goals a year and a lot less Donald Brashear’s.